Post: #301

(08-31-2018 02:36 PM)Montrose Wrote:  ^^^ sometimes a girl looks unhappy but changes her mind. For example if I approach a tourist in English she might look away in disgust, but when I switch to her native language she smiles and answers. Usually I guess her language or I try several languages.

Yesterday a girl gave me negative body language when I tried to open wave. She then totally moved her body like 6 feet away. I opened again inquiring 'hey sorry was that a rejection or just cause I can't tell for sure.'

She told me that she couldn't tell if I was talking to her and got her number. She later didn't respond to my text though so maybe she just did it to get rid of me though she seemed much cooler on second approach because I was also more piercing in my approach.

I saw this in sales as well where my trainer would continue despite negative body language and people would soften. I feel really bad causing negative/bad emotions in people and if they aren't easily controlled/go away it can easily escalate. Good to know though and something I'll play with when I'm in state to not get kicked out of venues/beat up lol.

Post: #302

Also often they make a surprised face, pretending they are freaking out because you’re weird, but if you appear relaxed and confident they change their attitude. Kind of a mini shit test.

That said, if after 10 seconds she has not opened up I eject. Also if she says ‘I dont want to talk’ I eject immediately.

Post: #303

(08-31-2018 02:46 PM)Montrose Wrote:  Also often they make a surprised face, pretending they are freaking out because you’re weird, but if you appear relaxed and confident they change their attitude. Kind of a mini shit test.

That said, if after 10 seconds she has not opened up I eject. Also if she says ‘I dont want to talk’ I eject immediately.

I've found that 90%+ of girls that I laid from daygame looking back they were just receptive. I still have no idea to find out if they will be though. Without approaching for sure.

What have you found for finding the receptive ones?

for me generally

1) single sets are best (could just be my game but I made stats on this and it's 10x harder for me to lay girls in groups. reasons being = societal programming, women have disqualifying frame etc.)

2) this one i'm 50/50 on but the seem to walk slower.

3) they are often transplants. I think women's receptiveness/downness is correlated to lack of men in their lives. Notice in universities most of hookups happen in first month of 'frosh' than things solidify. Be it girls just moving from a nearby town. New to area for work etc.

Post: #304

4) tote bags. Girls with tote bags are open minded, women with handbags are too entitled. Backpacks are vulgar.

Post: #305

(08-31-2018 03:59 PM)Montrose Wrote:  4) tote bags. Girls with tote bags are open minded, women with handbags are too entitled. Backpacks are vulgar.

What do you mean by vulgar? I haven't noticed a correlation really from the above but I didn't pay attention to that so could be wrong.

Post: #306

Backpacks are fine but they are less refined, meaning the girl has not made an effort to look good.today.

Post: #307

(09-01-2018 01:56 AM)Montrose Wrote:  Backpacks are fine but they are less refined, meaning the girl has not made an effort to look good.today.

or a student.

Post: #308

(08-31-2018 02:27 PM)jacknap Wrote:  For example I wave hey how is it going and they 'avert gaze trying to act like they didn't see me/look at phone/try to deke me out'. Those are basically rejections right?

Could be your opener? Girls feel shy sometimes too.

Even with indirect openers you need to have an 'excuse' to talk to her (e.g. pet shop).

Otherwise she'll be wondering why you're talking to her..

Post: #309

Not sure if this issue has been answered before but ... what is the best to approach women wearing headphones/ earbuds?

Post: #310

(09-02-2018 04:57 PM)rishboy77 Wrote:  Not sure if this issue has been answered before but ... what is the best to approach women wearing headphones/ earbuds?

I just start talking to them. Then they pull the earbuds out and I repeat what I was saying.

Post: #311

I do the standard direct street stop, but it would work in the indirect-ish cafe stop also. Just tap them on the shoulder or motion them to stop and then motion them to take their earbuds out.

Post: #312

(08-27-2018 04:42 PM)subterfuge Wrote:  

(08-16-2018 02:04 PM)pelicanto8888 Wrote:  Can some experienced guys give their opinion on Anthony Hustle please?
His infields seem to be less "gamey" and more normal chit chat. But does he have good game or is he relying on looks?
Should an average looking guy seek to imitate him?

A couple of his infields:
<snip>

I've been watching his infields recently.

It does sound like he's a good looking dude based on what Tom Torerro said about him in an old podcast, plus Anthony himself said that he's good looking. I dunno. He seems to get AMAZING results though, and basically gets laid at will with hot girls. Like within 2 or 3 approaches, he's banging some 8 or 9 lol. Must be nice!

As I feel is often the case, I think he gets girls in spite of his game as opposed to because of it. He doesn't get 'attraction' from his cold reads (as he says he does) but from then thinking he's handsome, at a guess

I now doubt if he is for real. Within the space of 7 days he claims he got a same day lay with a playboy model in London and a same day lay with a playboy model in Moscow.

Post: #313

(09-06-2018 03:09 PM)pelicanto8888 Wrote:  I now doubt if he is for real. Within the space of 7 days he claims he got a same day lay with a playboy model in London and a same day lay with a playboy model in Moscow.

Did he say that? Can you provide the source?

Wikipedia is a fountain of all things that matter and, interestingly, it does list all playboy models by name that figured in the magazine in all of its issues.

Let's, first, start with some assumptions. First, it's, as you mentioned, same day lay, hence Mr Hustle met these two playboy models randomly on the street. No girl was older than 35 years old (older than that and that really isn't a proper daygame hustle, heh). Let's do the math, then. Assuming a playboy model has to be 18 years old, the youngest in the magazine of 2018, then we would go back as far as 2003, and within each year there were (after a cursory look, I didn't make exact counts) no less than 36 and no more than 52 girls per magazine per year. let's average it out, whic gives us 44 girls per year. Now, onto some Fermi-back-of-the-envelope calculations...

We have 44 x 15 = 660 girls to draw from. However, because it's day game (not a night game at a Playboy Mansion), the girls would be somewhat evenly distributed all over the world per city, per country with majority, I believe, living in the US. However, the girls can travel though, being playboy models the locations would be somewhat predictable - top cities, such as Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, etc. Let's say that there are 25 cities like that. Then we have per any given city 660 / 25 = 26.4 girls, rounding up to 27. Let's add up to 30 for such major cities like London and Moscow (although, personally, I can't fathom what would 30 playboy models do in Moscow on the same day)

Let's suppose that on the day that Mr Hustle was hustling, all 30 girls decided to go out, specifically to the city centre and be receptive to an approach. It will be of great import to understand what probabilities of a same day lay are. Here, Roywalker's last post comes in handy. Roy's credentials, for those who've never heard of him, are: main Krauser's wing, raked up over 50 daygame lays and made thousands of approaches, including many eurojaunts, yet, to quote him from the last post: My mantra was – fine, more sets for me, I’ll just have to go out and get my same day lay knowing full well that the odds of doing so were very low (0.37% or 1 for every 269.25 sets, to be precise).. As you can see, statistically very unlikely, even more so to SDL a playboy model, a girl with looks 9+.

Both London and Moscow are cities, roughly, with 10 million people, and around 5 million of women live in each. Suppose, roughly, 1 in 10 women decided to go to the city centre, including all 30 playboy girls (an exaggeration but let's assume it's Mr Hustle's lucky day!). Thus, we have (5mln x 1/10) / 30 = 16,666 women per one playboy girl. The odds to bump into one are very slim, but let's conveniently round it down to 10,000. Now, Roy's statistical claim to SDL fame is 0.37% success rate. Let's say that Mr Hustle is quite a bit better and his SDL ratio is 2% and we stay agnostic about how easy/difficult would it be to pull a 9+ on the same day. From these 10,000 women, I don't know, Hustle will be in a position to approach within a week (as it took him a week to bang two playboy bunnies), what, 200? So, we have (10,000 women / 200 approaches) x 0,02 chance for a SDL.

So far, then we have a probability of (10,000 / 200) x 0,02 = 1/2500 odds for a SDL in a major city with a playboy model (on the assumption there are 30 girls strutting each day in the city centre). However, Mr Hustle claims apparently two same day lays! We, then, should multiply probabilities by themselves, that is 1/2500 x 1/2500 = 1/16,000,000.

In other words, making conditions vastly more favourable than the reality, Mr Hustle's chance of SDL-ing (and an assumed stellar conversion rate of 2%) 2 playboy models within a week are 1 in 16,000,000 from daygame. More realistically, statistically it would be nearer to 1 in 100,000,000 or less (remember, from random daygame, not a pre-selected, popular with socialite, venue in Beverly Hills!).

Post: #314

I think he said one was a playboy model (in Russia) and the girl in London was a successful 'fashion model' (not playboy).

And of course, maybe the girls told him this but SHE was lying? Who knows.

Either way, my instincts tell me he probably is banging hot girls from daygame. I haven't seen all his vids, but the teenage UK girl looked like a very real interaction. And he only presumably banged her on a day2. We only saw the texts of her arranging to meet him despite her boyfriend (texts could of course have been faked). I liked her, though!

But it's kind of irrelevant to me. Assuming he's getting the results I suspect he might be, I think it's only because he's good looking. And so i'm not particularly impressed, tbh. I think he's one of the many people who attributes his success to his 'game' without realising it's not really that which is getting him the most important pre-requisite (attraction)

Post: #315

this explains a lot of the shift i've seen in women from daygame. much like men becoming porn addicts which ruins the rewards circuit from normal sex. similarly with women with instagram getting all their emotional validation. notice their attention spans are shorter and way harder to impress too? people blame tinder / online dating but I think instagram might be the root of the problem since more girls use that over tinder.

Post: #316

(09-06-2018 04:20 PM)ksbms Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 03:09 PM)pelicanto8888 Wrote:  I now doubt if he is for real. Within the space of 7 days he claims he got a same day lay with a playboy model in London and a same day lay with a playboy model in Moscow.

Did he say that? Can you provide the source?

Wikipedia is a fountain of all things that matter and, interestingly, it does list all playboy models by name that figured in the magazine in all of its issues.

Let's, first, start with some assumptions. First, it's, as you mentioned, same day lay, hence Mr Hustle met these two playboy models randomly on the street. No girl was older than 35 years old (older than that and that really isn't a proper daygame hustle, heh). Let's do the math, then. Assuming a playboy model has to be 18 years old, the youngest in the magazine of 2018, then we would go back as far as 2003, and within each year there were (after a cursory look, I didn't make exact counts) no less than 36 and no more than 52 girls per magazine per year. let's average it out, whic gives us 44 girls per year. Now, onto some Fermi-back-of-the-envelope calculations...

We have 44 x 15 = 660 girls to draw from. However, because it's day game (not a night game at a Playboy Mansion), the girls would be somewhat evenly distributed all over the world per city, per country with majority, I believe, living in the US. However, the girls can travel though, being playboy models the locations would be somewhat predictable - top cities, such as Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, etc. Let's say that there are 25 cities like that. Then we have per any given city 660 / 25 = 26.4 girls, rounding up to 27. Let's add up to 30 for such major cities like London and Moscow (although, personally, I can't fathom what would 30 playboy models do in Moscow on the same day)

Let's suppose that on the day that Mr Hustle was hustling, all 30 girls decided to go out, specifically to the city centre and be receptive to an approach. It will be of great import to understand what probabilities of a same day lay are. Here, Roywalker's last post comes in handy. Roy's credentials, for those who've never heard of him, are: main Krauser's wing, raked up over 50 daygame lays and made thousands of approaches, including many eurojaunts, yet, to quote him from the last post: My mantra was – fine, more sets for me, I’ll just have to go out and get my same day lay knowing full well that the odds of doing so were very low (0.37% or 1 for every 269.25 sets, to be precise).. As you can see, statistically very unlikely, even more so to SDL a playboy model, a girl with looks 9+.

Both London and Moscow are cities, roughly, with 10 million people, and around 5 million of women live in each. Suppose, roughly, 1 in 10 women decided to go to the city centre, including all 30 playboy girls (an exaggeration but let's assume it's Mr Hustle's lucky day!). Thus, we have (5mln x 1/10) / 30 = 16,666 women per one playboy girl. The odds to bump into one are very slim, but let's conveniently round it down to 10,000. Now, Roy's statistical claim to SDL fame is 0.37% success rate. Let's say that Mr Hustle is quite a bit better and his SDL ratio is 2% and we stay agnostic about how easy/difficult would it be to pull a 9+ on the same day. From these 10,000 women, I don't know, Hustle will be in a position to approach within a week (as it took him a week to bang two playboy bunnies), what, 200? So, we have (10,000 women / 200 approaches) x 0,02 chance for a SDL.

So far, then we have a probability of (10,000 / 200) x 0,02 = 1/2500 odds for a SDL in a major city with a playboy model (on the assumption there are 30 girls strutting each day in the city centre). However, Mr Hustle claims apparently two same day lays! We, then, should multiply probabilities by themselves, that is 1/2500 x 1/2500 = 1/16,000,000.

In other words, making conditions vastly more favourable than the reality, Mr Hustle's chance of SDL-ing (and an assumed stellar conversion rate of 2%) 2 playboy models within a week are 1 in 16,000,000 from daygame. More realistically, statistically it would be nearer to 1 in 100,000,000 or less (remember, from random daygame, not a pre-selected, popular with socialite, venue in Beverly Hills!).

First same day lay with a playboy model in London (it says 'supermodel' in the video title, but confirms she has done playboy at 18:12 in the video).




Second same day lay with a playboy model in Moscow.





Excellent breakdown of the odds ksbms. The chances of it being true are so ridiculous it would be stupid to believe it actually happened.

Post: #317

(09-07-2018 12:43 PM)pelicanto8888 Wrote:  First same day lay with a playboy model in London (it says 'supermodel' in the video title, but confirms she has done playboy at 18:12 in the video).




Second same day lay with a playboy model in Moscow.





Excellent breakdown of the odds ksbms. The chances of it being true are so ridiculous it would be stupid to believe it actually happened.

Thanks for the link. I think that the odds are a bit better than my rough estimate from my previous post.

First, you'll be able to screen out some 90% of women just by looking at them so the cost is negligible, mere seconds. However, I have grossly underestimated the amount of pedestrian traffic in London. Oxford Street alone has estimated 500,000 people visiting it each day! If we cut it by half to subtract males and multiply by 5% a (say, 1 in 20 women are worth approaching) and divide it by 10 hours of shopping hours, we get ((500,000 / 2) x 0.05) / 10 = 1250 per hour to screen out from and decide which one to approach. If we assume a 4 hours long session (because we want to approach 8+ girls), then we get 5000. With that estimation the odds are 1/12500 per a single SDL, however with two, it's still 1/8,000,000. Half as bad as before but still extremely unlikely, basically you can play lotto and expect to win a jackpot just as much.

However, if you target a high probability places for playboy girls, I don't know, perhaps Selfridges, Harrods, Luis Vuitton, and other high end stores to hang inside and around them, there's somewhat higher probability but there will be an opportunity cost against other playboy girls randomly mingling in other areas of town (we shouldn't suppose that on a particular Thursday afternoon 30 playboy girls are in dire need of a new Luis Vuitton bag).

But, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose, which is ridiculous, that 3 playboy girls are hanging out in Selfridges every hour which, reportedly, gets 20,000,000 visitors per year, giving us on any given day, on average, 20,000,000 / 361 / 10 hours = 5,500 visitors per hour. That's better. However, I assume that Selfridges attracts more attractive women for obvious reasons, and 1 in 10 would be worth approaching, which gives us (55,000 / 10) x 0.1 = 550 women worth approaching every hour with 3 playboy bunnies among them.

The session lasts 4 hours thus 550 x 4 x 3 = 2200 women with 12 playboy models hiding.However, spam approaching, due to CCTV and security is out of the question. Our session lasts, say, two hours max before things become suspicious, thus we have 1100 women per 6 playboy models =183 women / per playboy model in a top end mall which, still, sounds frankly, frigging crazy.

Now, how many mr Hustle might be in position to skilfully approach over 2 hours, say, 10? Thus, we have (10/366) x 6 = 0.16% chance for approaching a playboy model under improbable conditions. Now, lets multiply the odds of approaching a playboy model, that is 0.16 x 0.02 (chance of a SDL) = 0.32% or 1/312 for SDL with a playboy model. But we're talking about two within a week, thus mr Hustle's probability of bagging a duo of SDLs with playboy models under a crazy assumption that:

- there are 12 playboy models strutting around Selfridges within a 4h period (and in a Moscow's equivalent)

- a superhuman capacity to convert 1 in 50 approaches to an SDL, is

1 in 97,344.

Post: #318

The probability is very small but it doesn’t mean that the story is not plausible.

Consider: Out of hundreds of players approaching thousands of women, most will never bang playboy models and therefore will not publish videos on youtube. But the ones who do bang a model or two are the ones who will document the feat.

It’s like saying ‘this documentary about lottery winners must be a fake because the probability of winning the lottery is 1/100000000’. The fact is that most people who appear in documentaries about the lottery are actual lottery winners.

Post: #319

(09-06-2018 04:29 PM)subterfuge Wrote:  I think he said one was a playboy model (in Russia) and the girl in London was a successful 'fashion model' (not playboy).

And of course, maybe the girls told him this but SHE was lying? Who knows.

A seasoned player wouldn't just take a girl's word for that, a guy who can serially SDL hot girls, isn't a naive child. If she truly was a playboy model, it would be stupefyingly easily to verify - just google it or look up the girls here. Most likely, a girl would show pictures from the magazine herself, there's nothing to be ashamed of.

Post: #320

Number crunching aside, this good looking guy, Krauser's wing, who is at least competent at daygame is banging under 0.4% of his approaches? Even if that's just his SDL numbers it's not very encouraging. Good looking, good game, failure rate 99.6% of the time. I know cold approach is a numbers game and most things are out of your control but come on... there's a point at which you realize you're not getting good ROI. One of the main reasons he keeps doing it must be because he is trying to make money off it.

It makes you wonder whether Krauser in his dating examples is getting laid because he just didn't fuck up or because his "game" was good enough to push weak maybe/maybe girls into yes territory. For all the dates Krauser had we don't really know how many approaches he took to get those dates. Or how attractive exactly the girls were.

If you check out what GLL says, that even if you are optimal looking for each girl, and have optimal personality suited to each girl, very high SMV, great looking, jacked if that's what she likes etc., it's almost impossible to bang anything more than 10% from cold approach day game. Even that in the modern era in the west I feel is optimistic. And I'm not sure looking like a musclebound scumbag would help as much in EE countries like Poland as we might think: more r selected girls would be more DTF, but more k selected girls might tend to flee, leaving a net neutral effect. Either way "getting laid at will" in day game is a myth. Beginner's luck might get you laid on your first approach, or second or third, but reality will soon set in.

Post: #321

Again, statistics is not a good indicator in this case. I'll give you two scenarios,
1- I mass approach every single girl I see >>> Conversion ratio is low >>> Skills gained are high
2- I approach the girls who gave me IOI's ( submissive eye contact ,....) >>> Conversion ratio is high.

Here what I am doing at the moment :
1-Mass approaching to hone my skill, then
2- Once, I got number one done ,
3- I will be put myself in the location where I see a lot of girls and I go only for the one who gave me IOI's

Post: #322

0.4% is on the low side but I would actually be pretty happy with 2-3%. 10% is literally a godsend, that's really unrealistic

Post: #323

John Bodi did 5 from 1000 in his book (0.5%) but that's coming from a low base. He was self-diagnosed omega.

BTW it's a very entertaining book if you have time to read it.

'Industry standard' is 3-5% and I'm on about that currently. Sounds low but really it's not that bad and even a lot of the interactions that don't go anywhere are still fun.

Post: #324

I get one lay a year from about 50 approaches per year. That’s 2%. I could probably get more if I was more aggressive but the % might go down.

Post: #325

Another new Lay with a Russian for tony Hustle! (apparently!) lol

He also says he gets laid in like 1 in 5 approaches!!!

My instincts tell me he DOES get laid a lot with hot girls through daygame (although 1 in 5 in surely bollox!)
I bet it's more like 1 in 20 or so. Lots of Cherry picking etc
What annoys me is how he completely dismisses that his looks play a massive role in his success lol
He thinks he gets attraction from cold reads such as telling the girl that she looks like she does something creative (Not because he's handsome!) I saw someone suggest he wear a super realistic latex 'ugly mask' to see if that effects his results! haha